L E T T E E 



--|*^t|al)itaitte of ^nirob^r ani ^art| ^iiirater. 



N . W . H A Z E N 



BOSTON: 

FETRIDGE AND COMPANY, 

100 Washington Street. 
1856. 



*Oy 




Qass , ' 

Book ■ L 4- H -? I 



/ 



f 



/^tzr^> 



LETTER 






|n|itMtart^ of ^liiiobcr aiii iort| ^Inkbcr, 



N. W. IIAZEN, 



^-^i z;;^ 



BOSTON: 
FETKIDGE AND COMPAxXY, 

100 Wasiii\(;tox Stkkkt. 
1S5G. 



F^-' 



c A 51 n R I D G r: : 

ALLEN A N U F A U N 11 A M , V 15 INTERS. 



LETTER. 



Fellow-Citizens : — 

I trust that you will find in this letter sufficient 
apology for its appearance. It is a defence, which if 
it could not be made, I should be unworthy the kind- 
ness for which I am so much indebted to so many of 
you. It is demanded by justice to you, and to my 
friends, wherever they may be. It is strange indeed 
that such an occasion for appealing to you should have 
arisen. It is very painful to me to be compelled for 
such purposes to obtrude any matters personal to me 
on 3'Our notice. So far as may be in my power, the 
subject shall now be disposed of in such a manner that 
it shall never a2;ain come into discussion. 

It is now more than ten years since it was charged 
upon me that I had bought land for myself, after I had 
been engaged by the projectors of the Essex Company 
to purchase the same land for them. The accusation 
was thus vague and indefinite. I owned but two par- 
cels to which it could applj', and as it was used to com- 
pel me to sell what may be known as the Shawsheen 

(3) 



House estate, it was assumed that was the property in 
relation to w^hich the alleged offence had been com- 
mitted. 

Those of you who are of sufficient age will remem- 
ber that in the winter of 1844-45 several persons 
were engaged in buying the lands, now embraced in 
the limits of Lawrence, and that the name of Samuel 
Lawa-ence was associated with this business. He and 
John Nesmith were apparently its principals. It was 
however the connection of Mr. Lawrence with it, that 
mainly gave countenance and plausibility to the enter- 
prise said to be projected. He was understood to be 
almost daily in the prosecution of its objects ; he was 
one of the four corporators named in the charter of 
the Essex Company : the city built on the land then 
obtained by him and his associates has received his 
family name. I do not know that he is, or ever has 
been, an officer or agent of this corporation ; but such 
was his share in its inception and formation, and such 
has been his intimacy and connection with those who 
have had the conduct of its affairs, that no one will 
doubt that he is able to state truly its acts, and that 
his conduct, in relation to the same subjects, may be 
taken to represent justly its policy and motives. 

The project of "a new city" commenced under such 
auspices, attracted the attention of the whole country. 
The story of the lawyer who had been guilty of a 
breach of trust towards its distinguished j)i'oJ6ctors, 
found its way into every part of the community. I 






knew much less of this at the time than I have since 
discovered. Within-' the past year I have more than 
once been painfull}^ surprised to find there were some 
whom my vindication had not reached. And what is 
yet worse, that the iinj)utation is still used to prejudice 
my character and interests. 

It is now proposed to state to you a true and fidl 
account of my share in those transactions, and of the 
course which then and since that time has been pur- 
sued towards me by some of those who were then, or 
have since become, interested in them. 

The deed of Mr. Samuel Poor, of the Shawsheen 
House estate, is dated December 14, 1844, and was 
acknowledged December 20 of the same month. I 
think that the date of the deed is the date of the con- 
tract of sale. The cause of the difference in these 
dates will hereafter appear. Within a few days after 
this deed had been taken, Mr. Saunders, the well-known 
agent and associate of the projectors, did come to en- 
gage me to aid in the purchase of lands, saying, that 
he v*\is authorized by Lawrence and Nesmith to jirom- 
ise me, that if I would take hold with them, I should 
come in as an original purchaser; that when the pur- 
chases should be completed, the proposed company 
incorporated and organized, and the lands conveyed to 
it, I should share in the bonus that was expected to be 
paid to those who had secured the lands. Nothing was 
said of my giving up any land or rights then in my 
possession or control. Under this engagement I labored 



6 

with diligence and effect, securing the title to lands 
vital to the enterprise, and which I think could not 
have been otherwise obtained on reasonable terms. 
The fiict that I was so employed so near to the time 
when I bought land within the limits of the territory 
sought to be purchased by my em]3loyers, gave plausi- 
bility to the slander that was put in circulation. 

At the same time with the origin of this accusation, 
and coming apparently from the same quarters where 
that had arisen, it was asserted that imless my land 
could be obtained, "the new city" would be commenced 
on the opposite bank of the river. The effect of this 
would be to fix the population and business far as pos- 
sible from my premises. You also had an interest in 
the threatened movement, for it would carry them 
away from you, and place the river and the toll-bridge 
between you and that portion of the territory soon to 
be thickly inhabited. It would subject you to personal 
disadvantages, and withhold from you and your estates 
material benefits. If it could be shown that it was 
one of your own townsmen, who had frought this 
mischief upon you by insisting to retain proj^erty 
which he had wrongfully obtained, he would be justly 
odious and justly condemned. 

Three persons, each possessing an uncommon capacity 
for bluster, and too well known to you to require a 
more special designation, passed through much of our 
town, invading your houses and shops, entering the 
public places, and filling your ears with the most ^ 



extravagant statements of the immense losses which 
my conduct was about to bring upon the town. It is 
matter of great pride and satisfaction to me that the 
effect these efforts produced on jou was so small. 

In the midst of all this, about June 25, 1845, I was 
notified by one of these three persons to meet Mr. 
Storrow, then and now treasurer and agent of the 
Essex Compan}^, at the Eagle Hotel, which as you 
know is little more than across the street from my 
office, on the subject of my land. I supposed at the 
time, that the meeting was appointed at the tavern to 
give it publicity and invest it w^ith a certain air of 
parade. On meeting Mr. Storrow at the time and 
place notified, he at once, without prelude, gave me 
formal notice that unless the Essex Company obtained 
my land the city would be commenced on the northern 
bank of the river. Instead of adopting this threat, 
made under the circumstances, as a proper basis of 
negotiation for a contract of sale, I availed myself of 
the opportunity to give him notice that if such was the 
disposition of the Essex Company I should not allow 
them to flow out the mill on the land late of Mr. 
Barnard. Mr. Storrow in no way intimated that I had 
obtained the land unfairly. Such was the part per- 
formed by Mr. Storrow in this stage of this business. 

The clamor which had been attempted to be raised 
coming more to my knowledge, and the slander of my 
treachery having found its way into the newspapers, I 
caused the following to be published : — 



TO THE PUBLIC. 

The necessity which compels this appeal is deeply re- 
sretted; but there seems to be no alternative left between 
it and the success of unwearied efforts to injure the charac- 
ter of the subscriber. These attempts have their origin and 
stimulus in the declarations and pretences of the Essex 
Company. 

That corporation has purchased about 2,000 acres of land, 
situated in about equal portions on both banks of the Merri- 
mac, in the towns of Andover and Methuen. They seek in 
addition, it is admitted for the purpose of speculation only, 
about 30 acres of land lying in Andover, in which land the 
subscriber has an interest. 

It has been affirmed, on behalf of the company, that it has 
been their wish and desire to locate the city which they pro- 
pose to found, upon the southern bank in Andover, but that 
the ownership of this parcel of land has decided them to 
erect it upon the northern bank. 

In connection with these pretences and declarations, it has 
been asserted that at the time when the conveyance under 
which it is now held was made, the subscriber had been re- 
tained to aid in the purchase of these very lands, including 
that in question. This assertion is utterly false. This par- 
cel of land had been subject to a mortgage to its present 
proprietors about thirteen years ; an entry had been made to 
foreclose the mortgage, which then embraced this and one 
other parcel of land. 

In December last a proposal was made to the mortgagor 
by me to release to him one piece of the land, and for him to 
convey the equity of redemption of the other. This I did to 
settle a mortgage of long standing, and to secure an interest 



ill property which was then increasing in value. The pro- 
posal, by my consent, was communicated to Mr. Saunders, 
who was employed in making the purchases, together with 
an offer to sell to him the same parcel which was to be con- 
veyed to me under my proposal. 

After some days' deliberation, in which time, as I have 
been informed, he consulted his associates, Messrs. Lawrence 
and Nesmiih, Mr. Saunders declined to buy it on the terms 
proposed. After the offer of it had been thus rejected, the 
deed under which it is now held was executed. Immediately 
after this, and, as there is evidence tending very strongly to 
prove, in consequence of this transaction, Mr. Saunders re- 
quested me to aid in the purchase of land. It is due to him 
to say that I have never heard that he has stated that there 
was any thing unfair or improper on my part in obtaining 
this conveyance ; on the contrary, I have heard that he has 
very recently declared that there was not, — yet if the asser- 
tion was true, he alone could make it, for by him alone I was 
engaged. 

I saw none of the associates for the purchase of these 
lands except Mr. Saunders, in relation to that business, and 
was not introduced to Messrs. Lawrence and Nesmith until 
I had ceased to act in their behalf. 

I have sought in vain for a responsible author of this base 
slander, obviously invented and repeated for the doubly base 
purpose of impairing at once the rights of property and of 
reputation. 

I have heard that in one instance a gentleman of Boston, 
represented to be highly respectable, and affirming himself to 
be a member of the corporation, has made the statement. 
But he, as well as the ignorant and interested, the parasites 
and dependants of the company, who have made or repeated 

2. 



10 



the falsehood, have chosen their audience so judiciously that 
their names, with those of the midnight incendiaries of the 
season, remain unknown, safe in concealment from the retri- 
bution of the law. Until they can be discovered, those who 
suffer from their depredations should receive the sympathy 
and support of all who respect the rights of property, repu- 
tation, and person, which form the basis of society. 

N. W. Hazen. 
Andover, August 5, 1845. 

The above was printed in the Boston Post, and I 
think was inserted also in the Courier, Advertiser, and 
Times of this city; in the Lowell Journal, and in the 
Salem and Plaverhill newspapers. It was contained in 
the Post of August 6, 1845. and was printed very con- 
spicuously in the paj)er of that date. It could hardly 
escape the notice of any reader. I have not copies of 
the other papers in which the statement appeared, with 
my signature, at or about the same date. It may be 
safely affirmed that the publication was far greater, 
than is ordinarily required in legal proceedings to raise 
the presumption of notice. It is quite certain that the 
persons, or some of them who then had the conduct of 
the affiiirs of the Essex Company had knowledge of 
the contents of this j^ublic statement from reading it in 
some of the journals where it was printed. 

Yet it is not known to me that any reply was ever 
made. I was left therefore to suppose, and did sup- 
pose, that the accusations against me were sufficiently 
refuted. It had been thus directly denied. You ob- 



11 



serve that T did not rest, as I had a right to do, on a 
bare denial of tlie charge, but had accompanied this 
denial with an explanation of the facts. I had asserted 
that my verbal contract ibr the purchase of the estate 
(the Shawsheen House) had been, with my consent, 
communicated to Mr. Lawrence and his associates, with 
an offer to sell it to them on the same terms on which, 
if they did not accept them, it would be conveyed to 
me ; that they declined to buy it on those terms, and 
that afterwards it was conveyed to me. This accounts 
for the difference between the date of the deed and 
the date of its acknowledgment. I asserted further, 
that it was in consequence of this sale and conveyance 
to me, and of course after they had taken place, that I 
was emploj'ed at all in the purchase of any of these 
lands on behalf of others. 

At the date of this printed statement, and for some- 
time afterwards, I continued to suppose that the accusa- 
tion against me related to the Shawsheen House estate. 
That it related to this estate is, I think, still the gen- 
eral impression. Those who do not know how I have 
been exonerated, and how little ground there ever was 
for charging me with a breach of trust, still suppose 
that my possession of this estate was wrongfully ob- 
tained. 

But I was afterwards given to understand my guilt 
was incurred in the purchase of the Barnard farm. 
Not many words are necessary to explain what took 
place in reference to this subject. To those who are 



12 

not acquainted with all these premises, it may be as 
well to state that this place is situate about half a mile 
above Andover bridge, and forms part of the western 
boundary of the land of the Essex Company. The 
other estate is a square lot, and forms the south-eastern 
corner made by the turnpike and the road leading 
easterly by the Shawsheen House to North Andover, 
and is surrounded by land belonging to the Essex 
Company. 

The late Benjamin Merrill, Esq., of Salem, held the 
legal title of that one half of the farm which formerly 
belonged to D. Barnard, deceased, and had given to 
the late T. Barnard a bond for a deed of the same on 
the payment of the sum of $1,050 and interest. Some 
time in 1843, or early in 1844 Mr. T. Barnard assigned 
this bond to me to secure the payment of money loaned 
to him to enable him to build the dam and mill on the 
premises. On February 7, 1845, Mr. Merrill was paid 
$979.18 for a deed of the premises, and his bond dis- 
charged. At some time, probably after the mone}^ had 
been paid to Mr, Merrill and the deed taken from him, 
Mr. Saunders desired to have a conditional deed, such 
as were used in this business, of these premises made 
to himself, Nesmith, and Lawrence in order to secure 
the title to "the original purchasers." I reminded him 
that he had been authorized to promise me that I 
should be one of the original purchasers, so that it was 
alread}^ in their control and might well remain as it 
was : that I doubted not such would be the course of 



13 

Mr. Lawrence or Mr. Nesmith in such case, and I 
tliouglit they would approve my keeping the control oi 
this title as security for the performance of the promise 
made to me on my engagement. Nothing was said by 
Mr. Saunders about advancing the money paid to Mr. 
Merrill or securing to me the payment of the debt of 
Mr. Barnard. I thought that he assented to the pro- 
priety of these suggestions. The subject of this title 
was never again named to me by him, or by any other 
person on behalf of the projectors or of the Essex Com- 
pany. Nor was any thing further ever said to me 
about being an original purchaser. Mr. T. Barnard 
made a deed to the projectors of the other lialf of the 
same farm, forming also a part of the western line of 
the land of the Essex Company ; but they did not con- 
vey it to this corporation, and it fell again into liis 
hands, by the non-performance of the condition in his 
deed. Upon the transfer of the lands bought by the 
original purchasers, the Essex Comj^any paid to Law- 
rence, Nesmith, Saunders, Stevens, and others, the sum 
of ^30,000 as a bonus or profit. A strong presumption 
arises that it was concluded to allow me to retain the 
Barnard farm ; to exclude me from a share in those 
profits, and then to force from me the other estate by 
the means afterwards put in practice. 

That there was for some reason a special policy at 
some time devised, and afterwards pursued towards me 
is rendered quite certain by the fact that our worthy 
townsman, Mr. Moses Foster, then owned and still owns 



14 



a tract quite as desirable and necessary to the uses of 
the Essex Company as any owned by me ; yet I never 
heard their inability to buy it given as a reason for any 
change in the location of Lawrence. Why, then, was 
this odium sought to be thrown on one rather than on 
another ? 

I never attended any meeting of the original pur- 
chasers, and, as you have already learned from the 
statement made in 1845, "I was not introduced to 
Lawrence and Nesmith, until after I had ceased to act 
in their behalf" It has been asserted that I attended 
before a committee of the Legislature to aid in obtain- 
ing the charter of the Essex Company, and acted gen- 
erally in behalf of this project. These statements are 
wholly untrue. While I was in this business I never 
had an interview with any of my employers except 
Mr. Saunders, and was never requested to aid in any 
thing but negotiations for land. I never was in 
their councils, and knew no more of their plans than 
was known to the public. 

If any thing further is necessary to avoid all possible 
cavil on the subject of the Barnard farm, it must be 
enough to state, that on April 5, 1845, this estate was 
offered for sale to Mr. Samuel Lawrence hy a person 
who called on him for that purpose. Without any in- 
cjuiry as to price or terms, Mr. Lawrence replied at 
once, "We don't want a foot of the Barnard land." 
No person on behalf of the Essex Company has ever 
expressed a wish to buy this property. 



15 

Mark, now, Avliat was the condition of these affairs: I 
had made a defence as to one estate, and had said 
nothing as to the other. If it could be shown that any 
guilt attached to me in the one omitted, how should I 
have been overwhelmed with shame and the public 
contempt by its exposure, added to the folly and base- 
ness of having attempted to mislead the public by set^ 
ting up a defence where I knew there should be no 
charge, and saj'ing nothing of the other in which I 
knew the guilt was involved. Why did not the Essex 
Company avail themselves of this ? Plainly because it 
would not bear a charge, and because the attempt 
would, as you see, expose the conduct of some asso- 
ciated in it. 

If I had been anywhere false to my trust, it was 
inevitable that those I had betrayed could prove it. 
But in the face of this public denial and defence, my 
accusers were silent. Whoever they were, they kept 
in the concealment they had always preserved. They 
shrunk from presenting their case to the public scrutiny. 
They chose for that time to let their accusation fail. 
No man charged with an offence could go further to 
establish his innocence. I had a right to say that my 
vindication was complete ; that my accusers knew it ; 
that their silence confessed it. 

But I had not stopped with defence, I had become 
an accuser. The published statement did substantially 
charge the persons having the control of the affairs of 
the Essex Company with being in a conspiracy to ex- 



16 

tort from me property for less tlian its value. It was 
said that the assaults upon my character had their ori- 
gin and stimulus in the pretences and declarations of 
the Essex Com^Dany, that they sought my land for the 
purposes of speculation, and that these slanders were 
fabricated and circulated to lead to its attainment. 
Is it not strange that honorable men should have 
quietly submitted to stand before the community in 
such a position? . Neither exacting justice of me, if I 
had first betrayed, and then slandered them, or making 
me restitution if it was under any error or mistake that 
they had pursued such a line of conduct towards me. 
All the allegations of fact contained in the statement 
of 1845 were left to stand uncontradicted. Nobody on 
behalf of the Essex Company has ever intimated to 
me that there was any mistake or error, and the sequel 
will show there probably was not any. The slanders 
against me, the assertions about the location of the 
city; the clamors of the three men of bluster, were 
probably all matters of careful and deliberate calcula- 
tion. Nothing but the fear of an exposure of some 
such a state of things, and of the persons who partici- 
pated in it, or a belief that they were above the influ- 
ence of public opinion, could have constrained to silent 
submission the men who stood conspicuous in the con- 
duct of the affliirs of the Essex Company, under the 
imputations of the statement published in August, 
1845. They knew indeed how weak was any indi- 
vidual against their combined power j they could wait 



17 

for time and opportunity : we shall see how they have 
availed themselves of these. 

Upon all this evidence I have a right to say that 
Samuel Lawrence and some at least of his associates in 
this business knew that I had done no wrong to the 
Essex Company or its projectors; that I had committed 
no treachery towards either of them ; that any action 
of the Essex Company founded on any such pretence 
would be founded upon a false pretence, and if any 
error or delusion existed on this subject it was in his 
power to remove it. Truth, justice, and all your, and 
all the public interests to be hurt by placing the city on 
the north bank of the river called upon him to remove 
any wrong notion existing upon this subject. 

No attempt to buy the land was made by the Essex 
Company until slander and clamor had time to produce 
their effect. The result produced by their operation 
was simply a resolution not to sell the property to 
them except on such fair offer, made by them, as would 
show that nothing had been abated from the price by 
terror or calumny. No such offer, or any thing like it, 
was ever made. I affirm that the use of such means 
to get the property was the reason why it was not sold 
to them even on the terms offered. 

Passing for the present over an interval of nine 
years, I proceed to show by whom and how this charge 
of treachery has been revived, the revenge or retalia- 
tion then threatened, and now executed in the location 
of the city, has been avowed, and how in other respects 



18 

the same spirit and temper, now it is to be feared, de- 
generated into mere malice, have been exhibited and 
indulged. It is to be hoped that this is a new principle 
in the conduct of corporations. It cannot but be 
deemed a dangerous one, and can never be necessary 
to their protection or to their proper management. It 
never could be the purpose of the Legislature to create 
in corporations a race of beings, like the creations of 
a strange fiction, invested with passions, but to whom 
it can impart neither moral consciousness nor moral 
responsibility, and turn them loose among the people, 
with more than the power of giants, to destroy that 
equality which is the great end of all our political 
institutions. No power of the law can with certainty 
protect the individual property or character, or indeed 
any private rights against mischiefs which may be 
inflicted by the influence of such a corporation as the 
Essex Company actuated by malevolence. 

You are aware that Mr. Samuel Lawrence is the 
leading petitioner for the project becoming somewhat 
famous as " the air line road." On Friday, September 
15, 1854, he made an argument before the county 
commissioners on behalf of that petition. One of our 
townsmen, who was present, informed me the next day, 
that Mr. Lawrence in his remarks alluded to my con- 
duct in the transactions of 1845. The same day I 
addressed to him a note of which the following is a 
copy: — 



19 

Andover, September IG, 1854. 

S. Lawrence, Esq., 

Dear Sir, — I am informed that in your address to the 
county commissioners at the North Parish yesterday, you 
stated in substance, that but for an accident and the treacher- 
ous conduct of an individual, Lawrence would have been 
commenced on this side of the river, and that the upper part 
of the land on this side would now be filled with population. 

I know that these remarks were understood by some of the 
audience to allude to some conduct of mine, and the same 
persons believe that such was the general impression. This 
understanding of what you said gives to it the effect of a 
gi'oss slander upon me. If you did not intend such allusion, 
you will, as a matter of justice, furnish me the means of cor- 
recting the impression that has been made. If it was in- 
tended, I take leave to request that at an interview between 
us, or in some other way, yon will acquaint me with the 
facts upon which you rely to justify such an imputation 
upon me. 

Allow me to add, that I shall not accept from you a refer- 
ence to another person, as it can be shown that you have 
that in your own knowledge which is conclusive upon this 
matter. Yours, &c., 

N. W. Hazen. 

On Tuesday, September 19, the servant of Mr. Law- 
rence delivered at my liouse the following reply : — 

AndoTcr, September 16, 1854. 

Hon. N. W. Hazen, Andover, 

Sir, — Your letter to me of to-day has been received and 
attentively considered. You say that some remarks I made 
yesterday at the North Parish, before the county commission- 



20 



ers " were understood by some of the audience to allude to 
some conduct of yours, and the same persons believe that 
such was the general impression." 

You have lived here more than a quarter of a century, are 
in high social and professional position, holding eminent 
places in church and State, and well acquainted with every 
member of that assembly but myself; it was composed of 
prominent citizens of the county of Essex and of this ancient 
town. When the detestable charge of treachery was made 
against " an individual," and this audience at once thought 
of you (from the account of your informers), I beg in the 
most solemn manner to ask you how it happened ? 

Not the slightest particle of the public sentiment of this 
community has been created by me, and I appeal to you 
again, why this damnable charge is placed at your door ? 
If unfounded impressions in relation to your " conduct " 
exist in this community where you are so well known, you 
have far better means of correcting them than I can furnish. 

Would it not be well for you to publish a detailed ac- 
count of all your transactions for and with the projectors of 
the improvements on the Merrimac near here from the time 
you were first employed by them, including your legal con- 
tests with their successors, to the present moment ? 

With due regard, 

Samuel Lawrence. 

This was immediately answered by the following : — 

Andover, Septemher 19, 1854. 

S. Lawrence, Esq., 

Dear Sir, — Li reply to your letter dated the 16th and de- 
livered to me by your servant to-day, (the 19th,) I have to 
say that I am surprised by its contents. 



21 

You cannot but know the charge of treachery against me, 
fabricated and put in circulation some years since by some 
of "the projectors," if not by yourself, and that I then showed 
its falsehood to the public in such a manner that no attempt, 
that I have heard of, was made to sustain the accusation. 
When, however, you reiterate the same charge against some- 
body — not intimating any other person, those who hear you, 
who know what had formerly taken place, and ivho also knew 
yon^ may well think that you might intend the same indi- 
vidual. It is proper in such case that he should ask you 
whether or not he was intended, and if so, what are the facts 
relied on to justify the imputation. I take leave, thcj*efore, 
to repeat my inquiries, and hope that you will not again 
show yourself afraid to answer them. I desire, that if you 
did allude to me in the remarks referred to, you will acquaint 
me with the facts that you rely on to justify the allusion. 

I add that I can satisfy any gentleman, in reply to any 
charges and specifications that can be brought against me, 
that my whole conduct towards "the projectors" and towards 
the Essex Company has been fair and honorable. 
With esteem. 

Your ob't servant, 

N. W. Hazex. 

No reply to this letter having been received, at its 
date I addressed another letter to Mr. Lawrence, of 
which, and his reply, the following are copies : — 

Andover, October 16, 1854. 

S. Lawrence, Esq., 

Sir, — I infer that you do not intend to reply to my note 
of the 19th ult. I write you again because I think more is 
due to me than a simple exoneration by the silence of my 



22 



accuser when called, not to prove, but merely to state the 
facts on which he founded his charge. 

As I intimated in my first letter, you have that in your 
knowledge, unless you have forgotten it, and you are perhaps 
indifferent whether or not you remember any thing correctly 
upon the subject, which shows conclusively that from the 
fabrication of the charge nine years since, when I refuted it, 
to the present time when you have revived it, that it had no 
foundation in fact. I conclude, therefore, that when you 
reiterated it before the commissioner's last month, you knew 
it was not true, and that you spoke as you did to do me 
injury. 

That I may not trouble you to write in order to an under- 
standing between us, I will take your silence as an admission 
of the justice of this judgment. In this case you will assent 
to the propriety of my making those who composed your 
audience on the occasion referred to, and perhaps others, 
acquainted with this correspondence and its result. All I 

seek, is security against further assaults. 

N. W. Hazen. 

Boston, October 19, 1854. 



Hon. N. W. Hazen, Andover, 

Sir, — Your letter of the 16th was duly received ; in it you 
propose to take my silence as admission of certain conclu- 
sions. I understand, I think, the design of such an invita- 
tion to silence, and I write to say, that you have no right 
to make such an inference, and to repel the conclusion or 
judgment you propose to make. I have not the faintest idea 
of what you mean by these words, " you have that in your 
own knowledge," etc. 

With due regard, 

Samuel Lawrence. 



23 



Aiidover, October 19, lSu4 

Samuel Lawrence, Esq., 

Sir, — I regret that I do not find in your letter dated thib 
day any statement of facts which in my letters to you of the 
16th and 19th ult. I so urgently requested, and of which I 
ventured in my letter of the 16th inst. to intimate to you 
some of the consequences of withholding. Allow me to 
renew these requests. Please consider that something is due 
to the audience before whom the charge was made. Did 
you intend to make the gentlemen who composed it mediums 
for giving fresh currency to a base and refuted slander? Had 
they not a right to suppose that you had some facts to justify 
you in what you said? But why should I make these 
appeals? Is it possible that you, professing to be a Christian 
gentleman, have brought "a damnable" and "detestable 
charge" against a very humble person, and after that, first 
with insolence, and then by silence, you refuse his requests 
for the facts, thus denying him, as far as is in your power, all 
means of defence ? And this too when he has meekly 
assured you that in reply to any charges and specifications 
against him, he can satisfy any gentleman that his whole 
conduct in the matters in question has been fair and honor- 
able. I have never before been able to trace this charge to 
the lips of one of " the projectors," among whom it was cer- 
tainly fabricated. I wish now to know your authority for it, 
and to be informed of all the particulars connected with it. 
Pray, give me the facts ; all the facts. 

N. W. Hazen. 

No confidence is violated in laying these letters be- 
fore you. Some months since such a purpose was 
intimated to Mr. Lawrence as a necessary measure of 
protection and defence on my part : he has manifested 



24 

no objection or reluctance to their publication. Yet to 
this day he has furnished me with no statement of 
facts, or made any retraction, or sought or made any 
explanation. 

No act of my life has been more painful than the 
exhibition of these letters. They present me expressly 
waiving all claim to indemnity for the past, asking only 
security for the future, for that reputation which far 
more than the attainment of riches it has been the 
object of my life to deserve ; a suppliant not for proof, 
but for facts; not for justice, but for safety; and even 
in that humble attitude, repelled with derision and con- 
tumely by one sf)eaking in the name of, and sustained 
by, the most powerful corjooration in the common- 
wealth. What defences have I against such enmity ? 
How can I expect to survive its endurance when with 
unabated fierceness it has lasted ten years already ? I 
seek no controversy with Mr. Lawrence. I do not con- 
sider that there is any thing personal between us. He 
appears only as the representative of the Essex Com- 
pany. I propose to deal with him in no other charac- 
ter. I am pained that the production of these letters 
gives to this publication a direction that may in any 
manner affect any personal relations. But where the 
object which I seek is merely safety from future 
assaults, and that is denied me, and the assaults con- 
tinued, pursuing this object honorably, I am not to re- 
gard the consequences which its pursuit may devolve 
upon the authors of its necessity. 



25 

You have now before you the letters of Mr. Law- 
rence ; I need not characterize the temper which they 
exhibit. I am sure that very few of you, from any thing 
that has ever passed in your own breasts, can con- 
ceive of the intensity of hatred which they manifest. 
He alhides even to my social position, at the same 
moment when - he confesses he had made a charge 
against me, which, if true, rendered me unworthy of 
any place among respectable men. In his view my 
guilt of a " damnable and detestable charge " lies so 
publicly at my door, that no allusion can be made to it 
but every one understands it : he intimates no doubt 
of the truth and justice of the imputation. Indeed, he 
had asserted them both. Yet this person so notori- 
ously guilty and so notoriously charged you have ex- 
alted to " eminent places in church and State." When 
I request to be informed what are the facts on which 
he grounded a charge that for nine years had abused 
the credulity of some among you, he replies to me, as 
if I had asked him for a certificate of good moral char- 
acter to be produced to you. Was this intended as an 
adroit evasion of the demand for the facts, or was it 
intended to insult you for promoting a person who had 
conducted so dishonorably ? Hereafter perhaps Mr. 
Lawrence will inform you, who are the persons that you 
should raise to " eminent places." If we have before 
this time groped in the dark, now that this luminary 
has come among us, we must beware lest we wander 
in the light. 

4 



26 

The letter of September 16 was no sudden ebulli- 
tion; three days passed between the occasion of writing 
it and its delivery. He says it " was attentively con- 
sidered." He has himself exhibited a copy of it ; he 
has called special attention to the sneer with which it 
closes. He desired to leave some undefined impression 
on the minds of some, who he knew would communi- 
cate it to others, that I had done or omitted something 
incapable of justification or defence. But there is no 
such thing. In April, 1845, I was paid for my services 
in buying land, without one word of objection to the 
manner in which those services had been performed, or 
any intimation that any further or future services were 
expected of me. I was certainly free to be employed, 
as I soon was, against this concern. If he means to 
pretend that it had any claim on me when I engaged 
against it, he is certainly guilty of a flilse pretence, 
made not to rob me of any specific property, but to 
strip me of all claim to public respect ; of all that 
makes wealth valuable, and to cover me with the shame 
that would give to poverty an additional sting. 

It is not unworthy of notice, that a present director 
of the Boston and Maine Railroad has committed to 
memory this letter of Mr. Lawrence, and recites parts 
of it when he can find a fitting audience. Perhaps he 
has enlivened some dull discussion of my affairs before 
his board by its recital. I have never heard that his 
studious industry has added to his mental stores the 
craven letter of October 19, 1854. I fear that mine 



27 

have wholly escaped his attention. Now that they are 
in print, allow me to ask this director, Had I not a 
right to these fiicts? But what sliall we say of the 
honesty or the capacity of the man, who can select 
from this correspondence that letter and try to use it 
to my dishonor? What shall we say of him when with 
this temper he assumes the trust of doing justice be- 
tween the railroad company, and the person to whom 
the taunts and insults of that infamous letter were 
addressed ? 

As to my suits against the Essex Company, you 
have already learned that when I was threatened that 
its power should be used to my injury, I attempted to 
assert my right and power to restrain such an abuse. 
I did commence an action w itli that view, which was 
decided, with some hesitation, I think, in favor of my 
adversaries. As I am invited to it, I will state that the 
suit now pending between me and the same concern is 
to recover from them damages for flowing the Barnard 
mill and land. They admit these damages amount to 
$4,000, and also that the only defence to their pay- 
ment is that the claim is outlawed. This is an entirely 
honorable defence against an unjust claim. But it is 
made by no honest man against a claim wdiich he knows 
is justly due. In the present case the same paper exe- 
cuted by m^'self and the corporation, admits that the 
claim is due, if it is not barred by the lapse of time. 
It is acrreed this is the onlv defence. There is no de- 
nial of the justice of the claim. I know enough of 



28 

your views on tliis subject to render any comment un- 
necessary. Who now should suffer from the sneer of 
Mr. Lawrence ? More than a year ago, he had my 
pledge that so far as he will dare to make charges and 
specificationsj so far the conduct, which he has arraigned 
in general terms, shall be shown to be fair and honor- 
able. Will Mr. Lawrence submit the conduct of the 
Essex Company and its projectors towards me to the 
same test? If he will, let him begin with a justifica- 
tion of his letter dated September 16, 1854. 

That be spoke the words, — whom and what they 
meant are admitted : that a civil request, made witii- 
out passion or threat, but accompanied even with a 
friendly caution, that he knew all about the matter, was 
made to him, for the fiicts; — that he replied with inso- 
lent taunt, — with malicious insinuations, but without 
a single fact; — once more, with no attempt at retort, 
without the show of perhaps even proper resentment, 
he was asked for the facts, and desired not again to 
show himself afraid to answer ; but he was afraid and 
was silent ; — all this, and more, appears from the 
letters. 

He says of me, that "I am well acquainted with 
every member of the assembly" that he addressed "ex- 
cept himself" He disclaims my acquaintance. I re- 
member indeed but two brief interviews with him, both 
wholly in reference to the Shawsheen House estate. I 
was never in his society at any other time. I never 
had any other business with him. There has been no 



29 

other intercourse between us. "Whence, then, his hos- 
tility ? Where did he acquire it ? Where but in the 
councils of the Essex Company ? Where but there did 
he learn to gloat with satanic glee in view of " the 
damnable charge " which the falsehood of himself and 
of his associates in that concern had " placed at my 
door." Mr. Lawrence would hardly wish you to l)e- 
lieve that such a flame, kindled in his bosom nine years 
ago, had continued to burn so fiercely, without fresh 
incitements and some gratification. Kindled, too, not 
by any collision between us personally, but only with 
him as a projector and member of the Essex Company. 
It was not him that I offended, but it was this corpora- 
tion. His letter discloses its counsels, not his own ; 
its acts and purposes, — not his own. It was not 
treachery to him but to this corporation that was 
retaliated in the location of the city. When he re- 
fuses to give me the facts, on which this decision was 
founded, he keeps the secrets of the corporation ; with 
this it is that all my relations on this subject exist ; he 
is only its impersonation. It was as its exponent that 
he uttered before "an assembly composed of the promi- 
nent citizens of the county of Essex and of this ancient 
town," a charge of treachery against a person with 
whom he had no acquaintance, with whom he had no 
quarrel. It was in this character that he insulted the 
virtue and intelligence of that audience by an accusa- 
tion against one known to all of them, "in high social 
and professional position among them," which in his 



30 

own personal knowledge he knew was not true. It 
was the cause of the corporation, and not his own, that 
he was serving, when he labored to revive a suspicion 
which truth, and the lapse of nine years had not in 
every quarter totally extinguished. 

I have deferred this publication in the hope that it 
might in some way be finally avoided. But recent 
proofs of the present hostility of the persons conduct- 
ing the affairs of the Essex Company force upon me 
the conviction that upon their part it is an unappeasable 
warfare. The duty of self-defence is imposed upon me. 
T ought to delay my defence no longer. At the term 
of the supreme judicial court held this month in this 
county, the case involving the claim for damages 
already mentioned was argued. Mr. C. G. Loring, a 
lawyer who has been long in an extensive practice in 
Boston, appeared for the first time as counsel for the 
corporation. In the course of the discussion, it was 
stated that some concessions had been made in a 
former case between the parties for the purpose of pre- 
senting a single point of law to the court. Mr. Loring 
promptly repelled the statement as incredible. ''For," 
said he, " there probably never was a case where the 
parties were less disposed to show any favor to each 
other." In other words, he had seen in this case the 
existence of an extremity of enmity which he had 
never known exceeded. He certainly made no such 
discoveries from me, for I have never spoken with him. 
No doulit he represented truly the state of his own 



31 

clients' tempers and dispositions. I dare not contemn 
the power of such a corporation actuated by such a 
temper. Besides this, enough took phxce during this 
argument to show that it is time that I rescued my rep- 
utation out of such handhng, and placed it where truth 
and public opinion will defend it. These servants and 
dependants of the Essex Company make a boast of 
their enmity. It is proclaimed in court. Mr. Storrow 
listened with manifest delight to the base and ground- 
less insinuations of counsel acting under his instructions. 
Mr. Lawrence discloses it in his argument for the " air- 
line road," and at the same time anounces how nine 
years ago they took some revenge, — but not enough ; 
they seek for more. They had a right to locate Law- 
rence where they pleased, so far as I am concerned. 
But when they boast that it was located where it is, 
rather than in another place, from revenge, that it was 
placed where it is to retaliate for treachery, they are 
bound to the public, to you, and to me, to show that the 
treachery was committed. Is it not strange that this 
vast corporation, to whose fidelity and prudence mill- 
ions have been intrusted, and whose conduct con- 
stantly affects for good or for evil the people of a whole 
city, should be under the control of men, who not only 
are governed by such purposes, motives, and ends, but 
who publicly and impudently avow them ? 

It is probable that I discover but a small part of the 
attempts made to injure me by persons having so much 
power and so much desire to effect this purpos6. Some 



32 

things, however, come to my knowledge. For instance, 
I was credibly informed during the pendency of the 
petition of the Boston and Maine Eailroad before the 
last legislature for leave to amend and refile their loca- 
tion, that Mr. Storrow stated in Boston that the posses- 
sion of the land tliat led to the controversy was unfairly 
obtained. Had he forgotten the flxcts contained in the 
statement made in 1845, or did he remember that 
statement too well? Mr. Storrow certainly does not 
mean to be detected in any gross impropriety. He 
w^ould not have written the letter of Mr. Lawrence, 
dated September 16, 1854. He does not belong to 
either of those two classes of persons, who, the prov- 
erb says, " always tell the truth." Without doubt this 
true development of the actual state of feeling and the 
declaration of Mr. Loring were both blunders. But it 
is in the nature of things, and it is a great conservative 
security against fraud or violence, that no conspiracy 
can endure long, or extend wide, without reaching to 
some occasion, or embracing some person whose weak- 
ness, possibly whose honesty, will disclose its existence 
and give warning of its danger. 

In entering upon affairs connected with the Boston 
and Maine Railroad, it is proper to premise, that those 
only which relate to its complicity with the Essex 
Company will be mentioned. 

The location of the new route through Lawrence was 
filed March 4, 1847. An indenture dated January 5, 
1848, between these corporations, recorded in the 



registry of deeds, sho\^s that this route was fixed upon 
by an agreement between them, and that the Essex 
Company, in consideration that it was adopted, re- 
leased their claim for damages, amounting to man}' 
thousand dollars. The track, thus agreed upon, passes 
nearly through the centre of the Shawsheen House 
estate ; and bounded as this land is, on two sides by 
lands of the Essex Company, it was quite obvious that 
these corj)orations might so exercise their powers as 
greatly to depreciate the value of the proj)erty. 

The same instrument further provides, that the loca- 
tion of the road shall not be changed, or in any man- 
ner altered. This secures both the permanence of the 
easement, as it had been placed upon the land, and for- 
bids the road to lessen its extent by abandoning any 
portion of its five rods in wielth. The agreement in 
reference to its location was of course made previous 
to its filing in March, 1847. There are several stipula- 
tions relative to crossings in the indenture, of perhaps 
doubtful construction to those unacquainted with the 
intentions and real meaning of the parties. It is suffi- 
cient for this purpose to state that their general de- 
sign seems to be to reserve to the Essex Company a 
control over this subject. After the location had been 
filed, the railroad corporation at the July term, 1847, 
petitioned the county commissioners for leave to pass 
at grade all, I think, of the existing crossings except 
that at Lowell street and that near the depot on the 
south side of the river. These were, of course, to be 

5 



34 

passed by bridges raised above tlie track, as they have 
since been made. 

This petition was continued from term to term until 
July, 1848 ; at this time the indenture above men- 
tioned had been written out in full, and at this July 
term Mr. Duncan, at present a director in the road, as 
its attorney, moved for leave to amend the petition 
" by striking out that part which asks to cross on a 
level with said way ' the road leading from the Shaw- 
sheen House in Lawrence to North Andover,' so as to 
leave said corporation in respect to said way subject to 
the provisions of the act of 1846, ch. 271." 

The effect of this amendment, if allowed, would be 
to compel the railroad to build an embankment to sup- 
port a bridge, so as to permit the passage of cars under 
it ; it was said the requisite height would be about 
seventeen feet. In such case, an embankment would 
be raised nearly the whole extent of my land, of which 
it has already been stated, that this street forms the 
northerly boundary. The whole range of lots situate 
on it would be rendered quite unavailable for building 
purposes, except at large expense. The same obstruc- 
tion would materially impair the value of the whole 
parcel by rendering it less accessible, — nearly closing 
its avenues on one side. It would of course injure 
equally the range of house lots on the opposite side of 
the street, owned by the Essex Company. But the 
loss of twenty acres of land could be well spared by 
them out of their abundance, and might be deemed 



35 

well disposed of, if by their loss they were rid of as 
much more otherwise held in competition with them. 
Possibly they might not be unwilling to destroy the 
land of a man whose character they had been for 
years assailing on account of these very premises 
However this may be, it is certain that Mr. Storrow 
knew of this design of the railroad company, and 
seems to have concurred in it. 

Mr. Boj'nton had built a two-story house on a lot 
leased to him on the east side of the railroad track. 
In the spring his collar filled with water, and it was 
desired to provide a drain which could be obtained by 
running it across the street, and about one hundred 
and fifty feet into land of the Essex Company. This 
drain would cross the street, and enter the land at 
about the highest point of the proposed embankment. 
Verbal application was made to Mr. Storrow for leave 
to do this, with the offer of any reasonable compensa- 
tion, and security that the drain should be filled or 
removed on request. 

The following note was received in reply : — 

Lawrence, May 31, 1848. 

N. W. Hazen, Esq., 

Sir, — I have looked at the gi'ound near the intersection 
of the Boston and Maine Raih-oad with the highway running 
between Valpey's and the Shawsheen House, and should 
prefer not to authorize any drain or incumbrance upon the 
land of the Essex Company. As I understand that the rail- 
road company will probably build a bridge over the highway 



t6 



at that place, your tenant would, I presume, prefer, in any 
case, to raise his building. 

Your obedient servant, 

Chas. S. Storrow, 

Treasurer of the Essex Company. 

It thus appears that, while the railroad corporation 
had at first, and before the execution of its indenture 
with the Essex Company proposed to pass this street 
at grade, without expense, they afterwards changed 
their purpose ; that Mr. Storrow possessing some con- 
trol in the matter of railroad crossings, knew this pur- 
pose before they attempted its execution ; that it 
would subject his own corporation to heavy damages, 
for which it had no redress and no compensation, 
unless these were to be found in the injury inflicted 
upon the estate on the opposite side of the street. So 
far as appears, he made no objection to the measure ; 
yet it will be observed that although its effect would 
be to raise an embankment from fifteen to seventeen 
feet high in that very place, the treasurer of this great 
corporation, by his official signature, refused leave for 
a small drain to be placed, even under this incum- 
brance, and extending scarcely beyond its shadow. 
The railroad company might, without objection, raise 
a mound seventeen feet high, but the treasurer says, 
he " should prefer not to authorize any incumbrance 
upon the land of the Essex Company." He certainly 
made no objection before the commissioners. But the 
proposed ''incumbrance" was resisted by the selectmen 



37 

of Lawrence as an unnecessary obstruction to the pub- 
lic travel, and not required for its security. Mr. Dun- 
can stated no reasons for the chana-e in the views of 

o 

his road, but insisted on their right to make it. The 
court refused to grant the leave to amend, and the 
street remains at grade. I know that it wai? not the 
Essex Company that moved the selectmen of Law- 
rence to any action in the matter. 

The cost of the bridare and embankment at this 

o 

place, computed by an experienced person, has been 
estimated at $6,524.20. Add to this the damage done 
to land and buildings then erected on this street, and 
the aggregate could not be less than $20,000. It is 
not easy to discover any equivalent to be gained by 
this expenditure. It certainly had its design. 

It was entirely right for Mr. Storrow to refuse leave 
for putting in the drain. He was resj)onsible to 
nobody for his refusal. It was a proper exercise of his 
rights of ownership. But he was bound not to attempt 
to impose upon any one the belief, that it was owing to a 
general objection to any incumbrance, when he knew 
that an incumbrance ten thousand times as great was to 
be put there without any such objection on his part. 

It is quite safe to say, that as for as the public inter- 
ests are concerned, or any just interests of either of 
these corporations, no reasons can be given for a bridge 
in this place, that are not equally applicable to any 
other of the several crossings at grade on the same 
plain. As the directors of the railroad looked over its 



38 

surface, they saw no difference, and classed tlicm all 
alike in their petition. Yet, for some purpose, under 
some influence, they afterwards made a distinction 
where there was and is no difference ; and this dis- 
tinction was known to Mr. Storrow before they at- 
temjDted to act upon it. 

And what do we now see ? In 1847, it was against 
my interest to have the railroad put across my land. 
It subjected this property ruinously to the control of 
these two corporations. This incumbrance was then 
put upon it by the purchase of the Essex Company, 
and for the same consideration it was asrreed that it 
should never be removed or altered. But in 1855, its 
removal may prejudice me, — then another route is 
afforded by this very company, — this agreement is 
waived, and the track is to be removed ; not, indeed, 
according to law, but against law ; not in pursuance of 
law, but in violation of law; to enable the railroad 
company to shelter themselves from the immediate 
consequences of their illegal conduct, by the perpetra- 
tion of fresh illegalities. All this is done to enable the 
railroad to violate the obligations of its charter. It is 
an example of contempt of law and legislation which 
if imitated by the individuals who compose society, it 
could not exist in an organized state. This, too, upon 
no pretence of public necessity, but to prolong a war- 
fare already carried on by them in the manner here 
related, for ten years. 

I have thus laid before you a brief statement of my 



39 

share in these transactions, and in part of my present 
relations to these corporations. I have acted always 
upon the defensive. I have resisted aggression. I am 
aware of no wrong or injustice done or attempted by 
me to either of these corporations, or to the projectors 
of either of them. Step by step I have been drawn 
into this, to me, most unhappy conflict. I have seen 
no way in which I could honorably fly from it. I have 
done all that I could do in its avoidance. "While I 
have kept myself unconscious of w^rong, I have con- 
stantly sought peace by all honorable and proper means; 
more could not reasonably be demanded of me. 

When you consider that this is my defence and ex- 
planation, you will excuse its inevitable egotism. The 
exhibition of my name and affairs in print and in the 
newspapers is very painful. I have done no injustice 
to you, or to any among you, to my knowdedge. Dur- 
ing my life with you, I have scarcely sought my own. 
There is no man whose condition has been made worse 
that mine might be made better. I now seek only 
what is just and honest, and will endeavor to submit 
to no injustice, while I am assured of the protection of 
law. I will strive that my case shall not be the first 
in which it shall be signally proved, that private rights 
are not equal to corporate, and that such has become 
the strength of these associations, that there is one rule 
for them, and another for the people. 

Your fellow townsman, and obedient servant, 

N. W. IIAZEN. 
Andover, Nbcemhcr 27, 1855. 



JM 



